Benny Weksler1, Jennifer L Sullivan2, Lana Y Schumacher3. 1. Division of Thoracic and Esophageal Surgery, Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pa. Electronic address: benny.weksler@ahn.org. 2. Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Sinai Hospital, Baltimore, Md. 3. Division of Thoracic and Esophageal Surgery, Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:Thoracic surgery can cause significant pain, and multiple strategies have been developed to control pain after surgery. We compared 2 bupivacaine formulations given intraoperatively: bupivacaine with epinephrine (1,200,000) or liposomal bupivacaine. METHODS: This was a randomized, open-label study (NCT03560362). Eligible patients were adults scheduled for a minimally invasive lung procedure. Incision sites were injected with bupivacaine with epinephrine or liposomal bupivacaine before incision, and each intercostal space was injected with 1 mL of bupivacaine with epinephrine or liposomal bupivacaine entering the thoracic cavity. Patient-controlled analgesia was initiated in the recovery room. Pain was recorded using a visual analog scale. The primary outcome was the amount of narcotics taken during the postoperative hospital stay. RESULTS: We recruited 50 patients; 25 received bupivacaine with epinephrine, and 25 received liposomal bupivacaine. The treatment groups were similar in age, histology, and procedure performed. There were no statistical differences between the treatment groups in the amount of narcotics required during the hospital stay (36.3 mg for bupivacaine and 38 mg for liposomal bupivacaine) or in pain assessed the day of surgery (5 and 5), the first day (3.5 and 2.3), second day (3 and 2.6), 2 weeks (0 and 1), or 3 months (0 and 0) postoperatively. Hospital length of stay and complications were also similar. CONCLUSIONS: In a small, randomized study, we did not find significant differences between bupivacaine with epinephrine or liposomal bupivacaine in mitigating pain after minimally invasive lung resection. We currently favor using the less expensive nonliposomal bupivacaine preparations until additional data are available.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Thoracic surgery can cause significant pain, and multiple strategies have been developed to control pain after surgery. We compared 2 bupivacaine formulations given intraoperatively: bupivacaine with epinephrine (1,200,000) or liposomal bupivacaine. METHODS: This was a randomized, open-label study (NCT03560362). Eligible patients were adults scheduled for a minimally invasive lung procedure. Incision sites were injected with bupivacaine with epinephrine or liposomal bupivacaine before incision, and each intercostal space was injected with 1 mL of bupivacaine with epinephrine or liposomal bupivacaine entering the thoracic cavity. Patient-controlled analgesia was initiated in the recovery room. Pain was recorded using a visual analog scale. The primary outcome was the amount of narcotics taken during the postoperative hospital stay. RESULTS: We recruited 50 patients; 25 received bupivacaine with epinephrine, and 25 received liposomal bupivacaine. The treatment groups were similar in age, histology, and procedure performed. There were no statistical differences between the treatment groups in the amount of narcotics required during the hospital stay (36.3 mg for bupivacaine and 38 mg for liposomal bupivacaine) or in pain assessed the day of surgery (5 and 5), the first day (3.5 and 2.3), second day (3 and 2.6), 2 weeks (0 and 1), or 3 months (0 and 0) postoperatively. Hospital length of stay and complications were also similar. CONCLUSIONS: In a small, randomized study, we did not find significant differences between bupivacaine with epinephrine or liposomal bupivacaine in mitigating pain after minimally invasive lung resection. We currently favor using the less expensive nonliposomal bupivacaine preparations until additional data are available.
Authors: Alicia L Eubanks; David F Grabski; Jessica Pollack; Daniel E Levin; Eugene McGahren; Linda W Martin; Jeffrey Gander Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2021-11 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Kian Banks; Sora Ely; Diana S Hsu; Dana A Dominguez; Rebecca C Gologorsky; Julia Wei; Clara Maxim; Simon K Ashiku; Ashish R Patel; Jeffrey B Velotta Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2022-01 Impact factor: 2.895